Evolution: the Verdict from Evolutionists
Choice Quotes from Scientists
compiled and commented by Hannah Newman
There are many more comments in my files besides those you will find below.  However, knowledgeable readers, and certainly those involved in the sciences, will recognize many of the names below.

I am including this representative sample simply to document my statement in _The Rainbow Swastika_ about the "inexplicable force-feeding to schoolchildren of the obsolete theory of Darwinist evolution.  This hypothesis has become so hard to support that it has many prominent scientists squirming...."  For context, see my notes on how social Darwinism aids the New Age goal of global purging, under the heading, "balance with the Earth".

I also include a couple of documents which address the all-out ban against presenting creation as a competing theory to school student.


- Prof. Michael Ruse, key speaker at the annual Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993), was supposed to refute the creationist book, _Darwin on Trial_ by Phillip Johnson (Berkley law professor).  Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of PJ's main points, that Darwinian theory is based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence:  "I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was.... For many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion."  He cited other leading Darwinists, including Julian Huxley, to back his "secular religion" comparison. [For the link to the full text of Ruse's speech, along with my own reaction to his "confession", see the segment on neo-Darwinism, in _The Rainbow Swastika_.]

- T.L. Moor, paleontologist: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." (cited in _Origins?_, BG Ranganathan, p.22)

- John T. Bonner: "We [evolutionists] have been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore it is rather a shock to discover that we have
failed to follow our own sound advice." (cited in _The Twilight of Evolution_, Henry M. Morris, p.91)

- Miles Eldredge, paleontologist: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." (cited in _Darwin on Trial_, Phillip Johnson, p.59)

- Mary Leakey, paleoanthropologist: "All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." (from an interview with Associated Press, Dec 10 1996)

- H. Lipson, physicist: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", _Physics Bulletin_, 1980, p.138)

- T. Rosazak: "The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity: omnipotent chance." (_Unfinished Animal_, p101)

- Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in _Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation_, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)

Quotes from reputable scientists and researchers (not explicitly pro-evolution or pro-creation):

- Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French Academie des Sciences, Editor of the 35-volume _Traite de Zoologie_: "Today [1977] our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us.  Biologists must be
encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths.  The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

- Bounoure, past Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research, France: "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless." (_Le Monde Et La Vie_, Oct 1963)

- Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley:  "We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer.  Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact.  The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science." ("Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy", 17 May 1997)

- G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (cited in _Biology_, Keith Graham et al, p.363)

- Roger Lewin: "It is in fact a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions.  Data are just as often molded to fit preferred
conclusions." (_Bones of Contention_, p.68)

- David Pilbeam: "I have come to believe that many statements we make about the how and whys of human evolution say as much about us, the paleoanthropologists and the larger society in which we live, as about anything that really happened." (cited in _Bones of Contention_, Roger Lewin, p.85)

- Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable.  We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." (cited in _Origins?_, BG Ranganathan, p.22)

- W.R. Thompson, Introduction to _Origin of the Species_ by Darwin: "This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.... I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial."

- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)

- John Ambrose Fleming, President British Assoc. for Advancement of Science: "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (_The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought_)

- Michael Denton: "The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific theory has become a reality for
evolutionary biologists.... The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research - paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology - has provided ever-increasing evidence of Darwinian ideas... There has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless... Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. Like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced, and like the creation myths of ancient man, it satisfies the same deep psychological need for an all-embracing explanation for the origin of the world which has motivated all the cosmogenic myth makers of the past." (_Evolution: A Theory in Crisis_, p.306, 327, 358.)

- B. Leith: "The main thrust of the criticism [of Darwinism] comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without." (_The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism_, p.11)

- Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History: "The explanatory value of the hypothesis of common ancestry is nil... I feel that the effects of the hypotheses of common ancestry in
systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge... Well, we're back to the question I've been putting to people: 'Is there one thing you can tell me about evolution?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true:  evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it." (from speech at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC, Nov 5, 1981)

- Louis Agassiz, Harvard professor, pioneer in glaciation: "The theory of evolution is a scientific mistake." (cited in H. Enoch, _Evolution or Creation_, p.139)

- S. Lovtrup, professor of zoophysiology at Universityof Umea, Sweden: "I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions [of Darwinian theory of natural selection] were not very compelling, and that there are now [1987] considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not
fit with the theory.  Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned?" (_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_ p.352)

- Steven Jay Gould, paleontologist:

"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life... Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it." ("An Early Start", _Natural History_, Feb 1978)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists is the trade secret of paleontology... In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ansectors; it appears all at once and fully formed." ("Evolution's Erratic Pace", _Natural History_, May 1977)

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." ("The Ediacaran Experiment", _Natural History_, Feb 1984)

"[Neo-Darwinism is] effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." ("Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?" _Paleobiology_ 1980)

"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument.  We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study." (_The Panda's Thumb_, p.181)


In light of these quotes, one can only suppose an agenda for continuing to promote Darwinism which has nothing to do with scientific inquiry.  I submit that it has everything to do with the New Age goal of convincing humanity that only the fittest deserve to remain on earth in the next age - in this case, 10% of today's population.

With regard to the other side of the agenda - the total ban on discussing "creation science" as a competing theory - here are two well-researched pieces which I recommend:

1- "Censorship of Information on Origins" by Jerry Bergman.
A very thorough survey which conclusively documents the literary black-out on creation science (even as a theory) which is nearly complete nationwide, affecting universities, academic libraries and science journals, not to mention popular science literature.

Bergman does not put forth a theory as to why such a Dark-Age censorship is being faithfully adhered to in this age of free inquiry; perhaps he is at a loss to explain it.  Allow me:  Creation as a historical idea (rather than a myth) has its origin in orthodox Judaism (specifically, the Torah book of Genesis).  Under the directives of the New Age Plan, all traces of orthodox Judaism must be eliminated from social consciousness.  Simple, isn't it?

2- "How Can the Creation-Evolution Issue Be Brought into the Classroom", which advocates a strictly non-religious approach, and for support cites a Supreme Court ruling (no. 85-1513, decided Jun. 19, 1987), and a quote by evolutionist professor Richard Alexander, which begins: "No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment [Feb 1978] creation is the only alternative to evolution.  Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason...."

It's clear that no colleagues paid attention to Professor Alexander, in 1978, in 2000 or at any point between.  No public school district today would allow the "comparison of the two alternatives" in the classroom, let alone hail the endeavor as "an excellent exercise in logic and reason".

But it gets even worse....

It is clear that any teacher proposing to challenge evolutionary theory, as the above scientists have done, can legally be dismissed as incompetent -- never mind about "efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses"!  Consider the pending court case in Rice County, Minnesota, in which faculty member Rod LeVake is fighting to be reinstated in his position as biology teacher at Faribault High School (Independent School District 656).  LeVake, who holds a Masters degree in Biology Education, was not even attempting to introduce creationism; he merely wanted his students to examine the scientific weaknesses in the theory of evolution.  He was reassigned by his superiors in 1998 on the grounds of "a deep conflict between his religious beliefs [sic] and the teaching of evolution."  The presiding judge in the Rice County District Court, Bernard Borene, dismissed LeVake's lawsuit that the school had deprived him of academic freedom.  In his judgment, Borene stated that as a biology teacher LeVake had no "right of academic freedom", and that he could legally be prevented from presenting criticisms of evolution, even "though they may be scientifically meritorious." (The case is being appealed, as of July 2000.)

It seems an unavoidable conclusion that there is a hidden agenda behind this totally irrational collusion between "science education" - which was shown to be anti-science and stifling free inquiry - and the legal system.  I submit that this same agenda is the driving force behind many of the changes in the educational system of America and the world.  See _The Rainbow Swastika_ - Education for the New Age.

Last Update: 30/11/00.

[Back to Jerusalem SearchLight]